Pumping underground water will start contributing to rising seas.

Last year, we had covered a study on the non-trivial contribution of groundwater depletion to sea level rise. It concluded that humans have pumped enough water from underground sources to account for up to 13 percent of the rise in ocean levels that occurred between 2000 and 2008.

A caveat, from a related paper, was that this might be offset by an increased retention of surface water in large reservoirs behind new dams. That would make the net effect of these human activities a wash. In fact, the 2007 IPCC report left out groundwater depletion when projecting sea level rise because of the uncertainty of existing estimates and the presumed balance with reservoir impoundment.

A new estimate, published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, takes a closer look at dam building and projects current trends into the future. While groundwater depletion continues, dam construction is on the decline. The result should be an increasing contribution to sea level rise.

For the new estimate of global groundwater depletion, the researchers used data on groundwater use and “recharge”—water that refills groundwater aquifers. This additions-and-subtractions water budget approach is less reliable than actual measurements of falling water levels, but solid data is much easier to come by, allowing for country-by-country estimates instead of extrapolations from those areas where there's detailed monitoring.

These detailed water budgets were tallied by country for the year 2000, which was used as a benchmark. To extend the estimate back to 1900, each country’s benchmark value was scaled to changes in water demand. The numbers compare reasonably well to earlier estimates, including those that used measurements of groundwater levels. The researchers did find that their method overestimated groundwater depletion in some wetter regions, so a correction factor was used to bring them into line.

They then projected these processes into the future, using three of the familiar IPCC scenarios. These scenarios include things like trends in land use, development, and population, as well as the magnitude of climate-altering emissions. Socio-economic patterns controlled changes in groundwater use, and a climate model was used to simulate meteorological conditions and calculate groundwater recharge.

This estimate puts the past contribution of groundwater depletion to sea level rise higher than the last study we covered. Where that study calculated a rate of 0.35 ±0.07 mm per year for the period 1993-2008, this new one estimates 0.54 ±0.09 mm per year—nearly 20 percent of the total sea level rise. Of course, newer does not always mean better, and it’s hard to say which of these is closer to reality.

Dam building has offset much of the contribution from groundwater depletion, wetland draining, and deforestation. In the early 1900s, the net contribution from these other activities was positive—raising sea level. When dam construction really kicked up in the 1950s, it held back more water than we were losing. Between 1970 and 1990, the net contribution from continents was -0.15 ±0.09 mm per year, partially counteracting those other contributions to sea level rise.

The number of new dams being built has dropped off markedly since 1990, though, and once a reservoir fills, it no longer affects the amount of water that makes it to the ocean. Because of that, the net contribution of these human activities between 1990 and 2000 was 0.25 ±0.09 mm per year, meaning that dam construction no longer offsets groundwater depletion.

If you look at the total impact on sea level since 1900, we’re on track to break even in 2015. Since dam construction continues to decline while groundwater depletion continues to increase, the researchers estimate that these terrestrial sources will have accounted for 3.1 ±0.03 cm of sea level rise by 2050.

The researchers say that, while increasing groundwater depletion in the past was primarily caused by growing demand, future growth in groundwater use looks to have more to do with climate change. Yoshihide Wada, a researcher at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the lead author of this study, told Ars that, in 1900, the area of irrigated land globally was about the size of France. Today it’s about the size of India.

That expansion has limits, and the growth has slowed. In the future, Wada explained, “Our results also indicate changes in precipitation patterns such that the available water becomes less during cropping periods. In many regions, the amount of irrigation water that needs to be supplied over irrigated areas will also increase due to enhanced evaporation as a result of increased temperature under global warming.”

That means more depletion for places that rely heavily on groundwater, like the western United States, northern China, western India, and Iran. “About 600 cubic kilometers of water was used for irrigation in India for the year 2000,” Wada wrote, “Irrigation water withdrawal for India is nearly [one] quarter of the global total.” That leads to the loss of some 50 cubic kilometers of groundwater each year in India. “Groundwater use is especially intensive [in] northern Iran,” Wada added, “where some local studies report that the groundwater table has dropped [at a] rate of 0.5 to 1 meter per year for the last decade.” Iran is losing an astounding 20 cubic kilometers of groundwater every year.

Since new dams are no longer making up for it, that water adds to the sea level rise. It's a small addition but gets combined with the usual suspects—melting glaciers and thermal expansion of ocean water—to drive long-term trends.

Dear fellow people living around the Great Lakes: let's hurry up and finish our defensive wall.

they already tried to stick a giant straw into our lakes once and failed...i keep waiting for them to try it again to water the desert dwellers out west.

If you want a steady stream of water stop living in a desert!

You do understand that if they don't live in a desert, they suddenly have to stack onto existing areas that are livable. If they don't live in a desert and pipeline water, we stack up and loose efficiency of land usage.

Also correct me if I'm mistaken, but Los Angeles is built on desert land. That's a lot of people to move...

Dear fellow people living around the Great Lakes: let's hurry up and finish our defensive wall.

they already tried to stick a giant straw into our lakes once and failed...i keep waiting for them to try it again to water the desert dwellers out west.

If you want a steady stream of water stop living in a desert!

You do understand that if they don't live in a desert, they suddenly have to stack onto existing areas that are livable. If they don't live in a desert and pipeline water, we stack up and loose efficiency of land usage.

Also correct me if I'm mistaken, but Los Angeles is built on desert land. That's a lot of people to move...

then it becomes much easier to manage the resources rather than pump it into an area that the air simply sucks away any excess. There is no need for giant lush lawns, 18 hole golf courses, towering water fountains in the desert.

It just annoys me that people move from the north to the southwest, complain about how its not like the north, then try to make it just like the north. In the process of doing this they destroy the area that they are leaving and trying to emulate.

If you live in the desert live like your in the desert, not like you are in some water rich area.

how do you think we're going to get all of our zero coupon Treasuries back from China? when they run out of water, we'll start selling them some of our water to them so they can continue to make iThings. of course, 1 unit of water will be worth 5 units of iThings, so we'll make out like bandits.

It makes sense that filling a new dam prevents a lot of runoff to the ocean, and that effect stops when the dam is full. However, wouldn't an old existing dam, with many tons of water sitting in one place with high water pressure at the bottom of the reservoir, have a little extra ground penetration of water? Wouldn't the weight of the lake push more water into the ground?edit: fixed 3! typos

The green lawn phenomenon in the arid parts of the southwest always annoyed me. Sprinklers running at noon in 100 degree F heat? Imported grass not really meant for the climate? Golf courses being even worse? Show-off business fountains? Air conditioning is a reasonable adaptation of climate to man's needs (except when you need a jacket inside to keep from freezing in summer). Landscaping isn't. Open air pools also qualify. At least the water shortages got people to start valuing desert landscapes, plus the hilarious use of green paint for grass.

As our population grows, every little thing we do becomes pretty large in aggregate, but it still feels insignificant to the individual. It seems like we need more constant feedback than occasional stories on our various impacts on the environment. Maybe something patterned after the stock ticker, showing near real-time water usage, energy usage, garbage created, pollutants dumped. We could make a game out of it. Instead of getting under par, see if you can get your neighborhood under the cap. At least then when people choose to be wasteful, they have some idea of the effects, like those kind of silly MPG indicators.

What about the one obvious solution? Desalination plants. One of the biggest costs to them is the energy required for running the plant. So why not set it up with alternative energy sources to offset production costs (while increasing startup costs obviously) and be able to produce water at a rate that would keep us hydrated for a rather long time?

California's already gone that route, I don't see what the issue is. There are multiple permits for desalination plants in various areas of California - it's an obvious and simple solution.

The government loves to hand out our hard-earned cash on all sorts of green ventures - well, you couldn't ask for something better than this.

Solves rising sea levels.Solves drinkable water shortage.Could also be utilized with a data center for a cooling system similar to what Google has utilized at one of their facilities.

The only downside is that there's a *chance* that *some* fish might get sucked into the pipes. And I know that's gonna stop production right there - I mean, they'll be sucking down 1/10,000th of the fish that the local fishing industries trawl.<sarcasm>You know *that's* gonna impact the environment.</sarcasm>

What about the one obvious solution? Desalination plants. One of the biggest costs to them is the energy required for running the plant. So why not set it up with alternative energy sources to offset production costs (while increasing startup costs obviously) and be able to produce water at a rate that would keep us hydrated for a rather long time?

People won't pay $1 a liter for water until they have to. Or until it comes in a special bottle with a cap at the gas station.

Does anyone know any details about the use of groundwater in agricultural irrigation? It doesn't seem to me like it should have a great effect on sea level. Clearly some of the water is absorbed into the crops being irrigated, and from there it's evaporated and eventually precipitated into the sea. But I would think much of it misses the relatively small area of the plants' root systems and just sinks back into the water table, no? It's not like farmers are allowing irrigation water to just run off. Water costs too damn much to allow that, at least for the agriculture I'm familiar with here in California.

People won't pay $1 a liter for water until they have to. Or until it comes in a special bottle with a cap at the gas station.

Not sure what world you're in, but they already pay more than that for bottled water.

Paying that amount for "tap water" might be a bit much for most, but with government subsidies and utilizing alternative energy sources, I think such plants would be able to operate profitably at pennies on the gallon, eventually.

Yes, they might operate at a loss for a few years, but I still think it's a very realistically long-term viable solution. And others do as well - that's why the plant construction is moving right along.

But I would think much of it misses the relatively small area of the plants' root systems and just sinks back into the water table, no? It's not like farmers are allowing irrigation water to just run off. Water costs too damn much to allow that, at least for the agriculture I'm familiar with here in California.

That's exactly why hydroponic gardening is starting to actually catch on in more arid locations. When you can recycle your water until evaporation and absorption eventually steals it away (which takes quite awhile in an enclosed system) then you maximize your growth and minimize waste.

You also don't have to worry about pesticides allowing for a much more healthy production of food. The only drawback is that it cannot be run without energy. This makes it crucial for large hydroponic farms to be more self-sufficient on their energy usage.

People won't pay $1 a liter for water until they have to. Or until it comes in a special bottle with a cap at the gas station.

Not sure what world you're in, but they already pay more than that for bottled water.

Paying that amount for "tap water" might be a bit much for most, but with government subsidies and utilizing alternative energy sources, I think such plants would be able to operate profitably at pennies on the gallon, eventually.

Yes, they might operate at a loss for a few years, but I still think it's a very realistically long-term viable solution. And others do as well - that's why the plant construction is moving right along.

Considering most bottled water comes from tap water and just filtered a few times.. Just put a a big Evian sign on the desalization plant and watch people flock to it !!!!

What about the one obvious solution? Desalination plants. One of the biggest costs to them is the energy required for running the plant. So why not set it up with alternative energy sources to offset production costs (while increasing startup costs obviously) and be able to produce water at a rate that would keep us hydrated for a rather long time?

People won't pay $1 a liter for water until they have to. Or until it comes in a special bottle with a cap at the gas station.

You're right on this (the snarky comment aside). Desalinized water doesn't have to be as expensive as gasoline though - there's just not enough effort going into improving the process.

If we could get more accountability and less cronyism in government we could pour less money down black holes like Solyndra and start using our enviromental subsidy/research budgets wisely. If we spent half the money we did on that mess on desalinization research we could have made major steps toward solving a looming water crisis.

Note that I'm not knocking solar power funding. What I'm saying is that we get so little out of our dollars in this area because it's full of corruption, kickbacks and back-scratching.

It seems like we need more constant feedback than occasional stories on our various impacts on the environment. Maybe something patterned after the stock ticker, showing near real-time water usage, energy usage, garbage created, pollutants dumped. We could make a game out of it. Instead of getting under par, see if you can get your neighborhood under the cap. At least then when people choose to be wasteful, they have some idea of the effects, like those kind of silly MPG indicators.

Hmmmm...or maybe a form of legalized gambling where you place a bet on the numbers for the upcoming year, to be made at the beginning of the year. Say $1 a bet. The winner(s) receive 40% of the cash, the respective local agencies 40%, 10% for labor, and 10% to charity. (or something like that)

You do understand that if they don't live in a desert, they suddenly have to stack onto existing areas that are livable. If they don't live in a desert and pipeline water, we stack up and loose efficiency of land usage.Also correct me if I'm mistaken, but Los Angeles is built on desert land. That's a lot of people to move...

You're not looking at the root cause here. You point to the people living in the desert as a reason to justify letting more people live in the desert. That's kind of circular. If we hadn't started communities where we should not have started communities (due to limited water supplies), we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Families would not have started and taken root out there, they would have done it in an existing, more sustainable city, where (unlike what you erroneously said) land is used more efficiently due to higher density.

If the people in those sprawling desert exurbs settled in cities instead, the overall efficiency of the society goes up. Not only is space used more efficiently, but some studies have shown that a big city is actually greener than a village per capita due to the practicality of building things like mass transit, simplified freight, water, and food distribution, and urban centers people can walk to from their homes. And if couples have fewer children in the city (I can't claim it because I'm not sure if there is data), well, that helps too.

The green lawn phenomenon in the arid parts of the southwest always annoyed me. Sprinklers running at noon in 100 degree F heat? Imported grass not really meant for the climate? Golf courses being even worse? Show-off business fountains? Air conditioning is a reasonable adaptation of climate to man's needs (except when you need a jacket inside to keep from freezing in summer). Landscaping isn't. Open air pools also qualify. At least the water shortages got people to start valuing desert landscapes, plus the hilarious use of green paint for grass.

As our population grows, every little thing we do becomes pretty large in aggregate, but it still feels insignificant to the individual. It seems like we need more constant feedback than occasional stories on our various impacts on the environment. Maybe something patterned after the stock ticker, showing near real-time water usage, energy usage, garbage created, pollutants dumped. We could make a game out of it. Instead of getting under par, see if you can get your neighborhood under the cap. At least then when people choose to be wasteful, they have some idea of the effects, like those kind of silly MPG indicators.

Yeah--was pretty revealing when I was flying out of John Wayne Airport a few years ago. Not far from the airport boundaries, there were subdivisions with lush green lawns, surrounded by desert scrub.

I remember in Jared Diamond's book Collapse when he described the decline of Pre-Columbian cultures in the (now) American Southwest. Let's hope we don't follow that path ourselves...

What about the one obvious solution? Desalination plants. One of the biggest costs to them is the energy required for running the plant. So why not set it up with alternative energy sources to offset production costs (while increasing startup costs obviously) and be able to produce water at a rate that would keep us hydrated for a rather long time?

California's already gone that route, I don't see what the issue is. There are multiple permits for desalination plants in various areas of California - it's an obvious and simple solution.

The government loves to hand out our hard-earned cash on all sorts of green ventures - well, you couldn't ask for something better than this.

Solves rising sea levels.Solves drinkable water shortage.Could also be utilized with a data center for a cooling system similar to what Google has utilized at one of their facilities.

The only downside is that there's a *chance* that *some* fish might get sucked into the pipes. And I know that's gonna stop production right there - I mean, they'll be sucking down 1/10,000th of the fish that the local fishing industries trawl.<sarcasm>You know *that's* gonna impact the environment.</sarcasm>

Sorry to rain on your futurist parade, but desalinization is not a solution at all. The massive energy requirements are only one problem. The other is the massive water pollution desalinization plants produce. You know all that stuff they separate from seawater in order to make it pure? It all gets collected up and dumped downshore as a toxic bilge, producing a dead zone. And that stuff builds up every year the plant operates.

Desalinization is never going to become widespread unless we completely throw our environmental regulations out the window. I don't think that's going to happen; even if we go full-on fascist, people start protesting once pollution gets beyond a certain threshold (that's why the EPA was formed in the first place).

As our population grows, every little thing we do becomes pretty large in aggregate, but it still feels insignificant to the individual. It seems like we need more constant feedback than occasional stories on our various impacts on the environment. Maybe something patterned after the stock ticker, showing near real-time water usage, energy usage, garbage created, pollutants dumped. We could make a game out of it. Instead of getting under par, see if you can get your neighborhood under the cap. At least then when people choose to be wasteful, they have some idea of the effects, like those kind of silly MPG indicators.

All them cowboys on Wall Street would drool over that bull riding competition. Think of it; a previously untapped (ha ha) exceedingly complex set of inter-related metrics, around which can be constructed even more exceedingly complex sets of derivatives! It's truly a cornucopia of cash; a horn of ripened plenty just waiting to be pillaged. Stand clear everyone: Job Creators At Work!

Sorry to rain on your futurist parade, but desalinization is not a solution at all. The massive energy requirements are only one problem. The other is the massive water pollution desalinization plants produce. You know all that stuff they separate from seawater in order to make it pure? It all gets collected up and dumped downshore as a toxic bilge, producing a dead zone. And that stuff builds up every year the plant operates.

Desalinization is never going to become widespread unless we completely throw our environmental regulations out the window. I don't think that's going to happen; even if we go full-on fascist, people start protesting once pollution gets beyond a certain threshold (that's why the EPA was formed in the first place).

Well, let's just look at the past and say that all future technology will be the same, shall we? In that case, we won't have to worry at all about any of this, as we'll eventually kill ourselves off in no time flat.

Now, in that crazy realm called the future, maybe it's possible for a desalination plant to do some pretty creative and crazy things - like I dunno...take the salt out and sell it separately - sea salt's a great hot ticket item.

Now, maybe, just maybe we do a little research into that sludge...maybe we find it's got uses as well. Perhaps it's our next alternative fuel just waiting to be found. Perhaps it's a great fertilizer. Perhaps we find out that it tastes great after some purification treatment of its own and it's the next tree-hugger super food..

You know what I hate about people who think they know it all? They generally only know enough to say, "It can't be done." Thank god the smart people of our past never listened to them.

What about the one obvious solution? Desalination plants. One of the biggest costs to them is the energy required for running the plant. So why not set it up with alternative energy sources to offset production costs (while increasing startup costs obviously) and be able to produce water at a rate that would keep us hydrated for a rather long time?

People won't pay $1 a liter for water until they have to. Or until it comes in a special bottle with a cap at the gas station.

You're right on this (the snarky comment aside). Desalinized water doesn't have to be as expensive as gasoline though - there's just not enough effort going into improving the process.

If we could get more accountability and less cronyism in government we could pour less money down black holes like Solyndra and start using our enviromental subsidy/research budgets wisely. If we spent half the money we did on that mess on desalinization research we could have made major steps toward solving a looming water crisis.

Note that I'm not knocking solar power funding. What I'm saying is that we get so little out of our dollars in this area because it's full of corruption, kickbacks and back-scratching.

And ironically enough (considering Solyndra) desalinization is an endeavor that could benefit greatly from solar generated energy. Not all coastal areas are similar to California, but if one thinks of vast arid expanses, often the nearest body of saline water will more likely than not also be quite sunny much of the year.

It makes sense that filling a new damn prevents a lot of runoff to the ocean, and that effect stops when the damn is full. However, wouldn't an old existing damn, with many tons of water sitting in one place with high water pressure at the bottom of the reservoir, have a little extra ground penetration of water? Wouldn't the weight of the lake push more water into the ground?

Right idea if slightly the wrong physics. You do get increased infiltration in dam reservoirs, but it's because the water level is so much higher-- simple high-elevation-to-low-elevation groundwater flow, along with limits on how quickly water can flow down through the soil. All the fine silt that settles out to the bottom of the reservoir is difficult to water to flow through, which can limit this some.

Regardless, it doesn't make a significant dent in the water budget. The other terms are just too big.

Does anyone know any details about the use of groundwater in agricultural irrigation? It doesn't seem to me like it should have a great effect on sea level. Clearly some of the water is absorbed into the crops being irrigated, and from there it's evaporated and eventually precipitated into the sea. But I would think much of it misses the relatively small area of the plants' root systems and just sinks back into the water table, no? It's not like farmers are allowing irrigation water to just run off. Water costs too damn much to allow that, at least for the agriculture I'm familiar with here in California.

Not much makes it all the way back down to the water table in arid regions. Most is evaporated into the air, or used by plants (and transpired into the air). Between adsorption and wicking (capillary forces), soil can hold a lot before letting the rest drain downwards. Even if a goodly portion did infiltrate to the water table, repeat that many times a year and the imbalance adds up.

"You do understand that if they don't live in a desert, they suddenly have to stack onto existing areas that are livable. If they don't live in a desert and pipeline water, we stack up and loose efficiency of land usage."

People don't understand exponential growth and don't understand burning up capital. Why do you expect they would understand this point?

People are morons generally, but they are crazy-ass insane morons when it comes to the subject of population.

Dear fellow people living around the Great Lakes: let's hurry up and finish our defensive wall.

they already tried to stick a giant straw into our lakes once and failed...i keep waiting for them to try it again to water the desert dwellers out west.

If you want a steady stream of water stop living in a desert!

And since moving entire cities isn't the most feasible option, start building more and improved damns to build up more water capacity--no matter what the environmental extremists say. Fish ladders and such may only allow a small minority of fish to pass, but dealing with natural obstacles and predation which we humans have removed would have caused a similarly mixed outcome. We should remember just how much of this country's environment used to be extremely altered by beaver dams and other natural features which we've almost entirely removed. The "natural environment" of today is very different from the actual natural environment before man irrevocably altered it, and that actual natural environment cannot be restored, so there's no rational justification for slavish devotion to environmental puritanism.

Build more dams, build desalinization plants when they become financially feasible and necessary, and certainly alter the environment as little as necessary in the process--but accept that some alteration is necessary, and that we are part of nature such that whatever we do to the environment is as natural as whatever any other creature does to the environment. We should be informed and responsible about the changes we make, and not make them without good reason and purpose--but we should embrace change where it can be beneficial to us and feel no more remorse for the sometimes-drastic changes we make to the environment (provided we judge them necessary and on-balance beneficial) as beavers would when they alter thousands of square miles (which, historically, they did through their cumulative efforts before we came along and stopped them).

A Nanotube wrote:

Sorry to rain on your futurist parade, but desalinization is not a solution at all.

Tell that to the Middle East, where desalinization projects are getting more ambitious all the time. They even have water pipelines to feed the water inland. That's likely our future, as well, unless we get over the unreasonable fear of dams. Pressure will mount in coming decades, and solutions will be found, environmental extremism notwithstanding.

BobsYourUncleBob wrote:

And ironically enough (considering Solyndra) desalinization is an endeavor that could benefit greatly from solar generated energy. Not all coastal areas are similar to California, but if one thinks of vast arid expanses, often the nearest body of saline water will more likely than not also be quite sunny much of the year.

Indeed; but of course Solyndra illustrates the futility and wasted resources inherent in government funding of such ventures. We can't forecast what markets will be like a few short years from now, much less decades out, so subsidizing green energy is bound to waste massive amounts of public resources on futile plans which the private sector would have chosen between more wisely. Public funding is better spent on generally useful infrastructure which will benefit everyone no matter what transacts in the development of green energy tech and related markets--such as upgrading power grids and building new energy transmission backbones like the one discussed on Ars just recently for East Coast offshore wind power (but which could tie into any power source, not just wind, and transmit it wherever needed).

Public resources are finite. We should be spending them on infrastructure buildout and upgrades, and on backing for new power generation capacity, not on pie-in-the-sky schemes better funded (or left unfunded) by the free market.

__>fxds wrote:__>Does anyone know any details about the use of groundwater in agricultural irrigation? __>.... and just sinks back into the water table, no?

Not much makes it all the way back down to the water table in arid regions. Most is evaporated into the air, or used by plants (and transpired into the air). Between adsorption and wicking (capillary forces), soil can hold a lot before letting the rest drain downwards.-----------------------------------

The soil composition and subsurface sediments make a lot of difference when it comes to absorption. I currently live along the upper edge if the Chihuahuan Desert and our water table may have dropped about 2 feet (from 8' to 10') in the last few years. Our house is in the Rio Grande valley and we irrigate from a system which was improved upon at the turn of the 20th century. Pueblo Indians and then Spanish descendants have been irrigating from the same river for more than 300 years now. I believe that a considerable amount of irrigation water can find its way back into the aquifer - here at least. Conditions vary considerably depending upon location. Soil made of alluvial clay will dry out and crack if not occasionally saturated with water. Once wet that clay will hold the water for a long, long time. Conversely, sand will allow water to percolate downward very quickly. Plants however, do transpire enormous amounts of water - on a daily basis. Anyway; just because "X" amount of water is used for irrigation does not translate to- "X" amount of water is lost.

Oh, and over by Phoenix Arizona (which is at the upper edge of the Sonoran Desert) three rivers unfortunately just disappear when they reach town. One can however, march out several miles into the desert and dig a Jackson and van Bavel type solar still. Incorporating a sheet of plastic, a fresh hole, a rock and a catchment pail, an evaporation still or two can allow a person to survive in a desert that has not seen rain in a year more. Even in a hot desert, soil can retain a lot of water. Low locations along dry creek beds where there is vegetation should show more potential than a hole just out in the open.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that you have to process the water to make it drinkable, and I can tell you that the water from the Great Lakes is NOT drinkable without treatment and that treatment varies by hour. An increase in the demand for water from the Great Lakes would require a massive influx of money and resources due to the fact that many of the treatment plants that have the capacity to do this haven't been majorly renovated since they were built as part of the WPA projects in the 1930's and 1940's. The increased demand would also create increases in chemical byproducts that have to be disposed of. I should also mention I'm a chemist at one of these facilities, so I have SOME idea what I'm saying

I think we should pipe seawater to inland locations and just dump it and let natural filtration do the job for us. Sure we would create massive salt licks and make certain areas unusable for farming, but I'm sure for every major aquifer in the US, we can identify an area where we could dump sea water to re-fill the aquifer.